Solution manual cost accounting a managerial emphasis 13e by horngren ch14

To download more slides, ebook, solutions and test bank, visit

CHAPTER 14
COST ALLOCATION, CUSTOMER-PROFITABILITY
ANALYSIS, AND SALES-VARIANCE ANALYSIS
14-1 Disagree. Cost accounting data plays a key role in many management planning and
control decisions. The division president will be able to make better operating and strategy
decisions by being involved in key decisions about cost pools and cost allocation bases. Such an
understanding, for example, can help the division president evaluate the profitability of different
customers.
14-2
1.
2.
3.
4.

Exhibit 14-1 outlines four purposes for allocating costs:
To provide information for economic decisions.
To motivate managers and other employees.
To justify costs or compute reimbursement amounts.
To measure income and assets.

14-3 Exhibit 14-2 lists four criteria used to guide cost allocation decisions:
1.
Cause and effect.
2.
Benefits received.
3.
Fairness or equity.
4.
Ability to bear.

The cause-and-effect criterion and the benefits-received criterion are the dominant criteria when
the purpose of the allocation is related to the economic decision purpose or the motivation
purpose.
14-4 Disagree. In general, companies have three choices regarding the allocation of corporate
costs to divisions: allocate all corporate costs, allocate some corporate costs (those “controllable”
by the divisions), and allocate none of the corporate costs. Which one of these is appropriate
depends on several factors: the composition of corporate costs, the purpose of the costing
exercise, and the time horizon, to name a few. For example, one can easily justify allocating all
corporate costs when they are closely related to the running of the divisions and when the
purpose of costing is, say, pricing products or motivating managers to consume corporate
resources judiciously.
14-5 Disagree. If corporate costs allocated to a division can be reallocated to the indirect cost
pools of the division on the basis of a logical cause-and-effect relationship, then it is in fact
preferable to do so—this will result in fewer division indirect cost pools and a more costeffective cost allocation system. This reallocation of allocated corporate costs should only be
done if the allocation base used for each division indirect cost pool has the same cause-and-effect
relationship with every cost in that indirect cost pool, including the reallocated corporate cost.
Note that we observe such a situation with corporate human resource management (CHRM)
costs in the case of CAI, Inc., described in the chapter—these allocated corporate costs are
included in each division’s five indirect cost pools. (On the other hand, allocated corporate
treasury cost pools are kept in a separate cost pool and are allocated on a different cost-allocation
base than the other division cost pools.)

14-1


To download more slides, ebook, solutions and test bank, visit

14 6 Customer profitability analysis highlights to managers how individual customers
differentially contribute to total profitability. It helps managers to see whether customers who
contribute sizably to total profitability are receiving a comparable level of attention from the

organization.
14 7 Companies that separately record (a) the list price and (b) the discount have sufficient
information to subsequently examine the level of discounting by each individual customer and
by each individual salesperson.
14 8 No. A customer profitability profile highlights differences in current period's
profitability across customers. Dropping customers should be the last resort. An unprofitable
customer in one period may be highly profitable in subsequent future periods. Moreover, costs
assigned to individual customers need not be purely variable with respect to short run
elimination of sales to those customers. Thus, when customers are dropped, costs assigned to
those customers may not disappear in the short run.
14 9 Five categories in a customer cost hierarchy are identified in the chapter. The examples
given relate to the Spring Distribution Company used in the chapter:
 Customer output unit level costs—costs of activities to sell each unit (case) to a customer.
An example is product handling costs of each case sold.
 Customer batch level costs—costs of activities that are related to a group of units (cases)
sold to a customer. Examples are costs incurred to process orders or to make deliveries.
 Customer sustaining costs—costs of activities to support individual customers, regardless
of the number of units or batches of product delivered to the customer. Examples are costs of
visits to customers or costs of displays at customer sites.
 Distribution channel costs—costs of activities related to a particular distribution channel
rather than to each unit of product, each batch of product, or specific customers. An example
is the salary of the manager of Spring’s retail distribution channel.
 Corporate sustaining costs—costs of activities that cannot be traced to individual
customers or distribution channels. Examples are top management and general administration
costs.
14-10 Using the levels approach introduced in Chapter 7, the sales volume variance is a Level
2 variance. By sequencing through Level 3 (sales mix and sales quantity variances) and then
Level 4 (market size and market share variances), managers can gain insight into the causes
of a specific sales-volume variance caused by changes in the mix and quantity of the products
sold as well as changes in market size and market share.

14 11
The total sales mix variance arises from differences in the budgeted contribution
margin of the actual and budgeted sales mix. The composite unit concept enables the effect of
individual product changes to be summarized in a single intuitive number by using weights based
on the mix of individual units in the actual and budgeted mix of products sold.
14 12
12A favorable sales quantity variance arises because the actual units of all products sold
exceed the budgeted units of all products sold.

14-2


To download more slides, ebook, solutions and test bank, visit

14 13
The sales quantity variance can be decomposed into (a) a market size variance
(because the actual total market size in units is different from the budgeted market size in units),
and (b) a market share variance (because the actual market share of a company is different from
the budgeted market share of a company). Both variances use the budgeted average contribution
margin per unit.
14 14
Some companies believe that reliable information on total market size is not
available and therefore they choose not to compute market size and market share variances.
14 15
The direct materials efficiency variance is a Level 3 variance. Further insight into
this variance can be gained by moving to a Level 4 analysis where the effect of mix and yield
changes are quantified. The mix variance captures the effect of a change in the relative
percentage use of each input relative to that budgeted. The yield variance captures the effect of a
change in the total number of inputs required to obtain a given output relative to that budgeted.
14-16 (15-20 min.) Cost allocation in hospitals, alternative allocation criteria.

1.

Direct costs
= $2.40
Indirect costs ($11.52 – $2.40) = $9.12
Overhead rate

2.

=

$9.12
= 380%
$2.40

The answers here are less than clear-cut in some cases.
Overhead Cost Item
Allocation Criteria
Processing of paperwork for purchase
Cause and effect
Supplies room management fee

Benefits received

Operating-room and patient-room handling costs Cause and effect
Administrative hospital costs

Benefits received

University teaching-related costs

Ability to bear

Malpractice insurance costs

Ability to bear or benefits received

Cost of treating uninsured patients

Ability to bear

Profit component

None. This is not a cost.

3.
Assuming that Meltzer’s insurance company is responsible for paying the $4,800 bill,
Meltzer probably can only express outrage at the amount of the bill. The point of this question is
to note that even if Meltzer objects strongly to one or more overhead items, it is his insurance
company that likely has the greater incentive to challenge the bill. Individual patients have very
little power in the medical arena. In contrast, insurance companies have considerable power and
may decide that certain costs are not reimbursable––for example, the costs of treating uninsured
patients.

14-3


To download more slides, ebook, solutions and test bank, visit

14-17 (15 min.) Allocating costs to divisions.

1. Allocations based on square feet.

1. Square feet
2. % square feet
(130,000; 90,000; 80,000;
10,000 ÷ 400,000)
3. Allocated headquarter cost
(Row 2 × $14,255,000)

Segment margin
Less: Headquarter costs
Division margin
Division margin ÷ Revenues

Refrigerator
130,000

Stove
90,000

32.5%
$4,632,875

22.5%
$3,207,375

Refrigerator
Stove
$5,200,000
$8,400,000

4,632,875
3,207,375
$ 567,125
$5,192,625
5.2%
27.6%

Dishwasher
80,000

20%

Microwave
Oven
10,000

Total
400,000

25%

100%

$2,851,000

$3,563,750

$14,255,000

Dishwasher

$5,300,000
2,851,000
$2,449,000
21.3%

Microwave
oven
$3,560,000
3,563,750
$ (3,750)
(0.06)%

Total
$22,460,000
14,255,000
$ 8,205,000
17.1%

Dishwasher
$5,300,000

Microwave
Oven
$3,560,000

Total
$22,460,000

Allocations based on segment margin.

1. Segment margin
2. % segment margin
$5,200000; $8,400,000;
$5,300,000; $3,560,000
÷ $22,460,000
3. Allocated headquarter cost
(Row 2 × $14,255,000)

Segment margin
Less: Headquarter costs
Division margin
Division margin ÷ Revenues

Refrigerator
Stove
$5,200,000
$8,400,000

23.15%
$3,300,033

37.40%
$5,331,370

Refrigerator
Stove
$5,200,000
$8,400,000
3,300,033
5,331,370

$1,899,967
$3,068,630
17.4%
16.3%

23.60%

15.85%

100%

$3,364,180

$2,259,417

$14,255,000

Dishwasher
$5,300,000
3,364,180
$1,935,820
16.8%

Microwave
oven
$3,560,000
2,259,417
$1,300,583
(19.2)%

Total
$22,460,000
14,225,000
$ 8,205,000
17.1%

2.
I prefer the allocation based on segment margins because a cause-and-effect relationship
may exist between headquarter costs and division segment margin – headquarter staff are likely
to spend more time on divisions that have more revenues and segment margins. Segment
margins can also be justified on the ability-to-bear principle – divisions with higher margins can
bear more of the headquarter costs. The physical size of the divisions probably has no causeand-effect relationship with headquarter costs.

14-4


To download more slides, ebook, solutions and test bank, visit

3.
None of the divisions should be dropped, since all four have positive segment margins
before considering the headquarter’s cost allocation. As seen by these two options, the allocation
of headquarter costs is arbitrary and should not serve as the basis for closing a division.
Dropping the microwave division would be worthwhile only if the $3,563,750 of allocated
headquarter costs could be saved if the microwave division is closed – a very unlikely scenario.
14-18 (30 min.) Cost allocation to divisions.
1.
Revenue
Direct costs
Segment margin
Fixed overhead costs

Income before taxes
Segment margin %

Hotel
$16,425,000
9,819,260
$ 6,605,740

40.22%

Restaurant
$5,256,000
3,749,172
$1,506,828

Casino
$12,340,000
4,248,768
$ 8,091,232

28.67%

Rembrandt
$34,021,000
17,817,200
16,203,800
14,550,000
$ 1,653,800

65.57%

2.
Direct costs
Direct cost %
Square footage
Square footage %
Number of employees
Number of employees %

Hotel
$9819260
55.11%
80,000
50.00%
200
40.00%

Restaurant
$3749172
21.04%
16,000
10.00%
50
10.00%

Casino
$4248768
23.85%
64,000
40.00%

250
50.00%

Rembrandt
$17817200
100.00%
160,000
100.00%
500
100.00%

A: Cost allocation based on direct costs:
Revenue
Direct costs
Segment margin
Allocated fixed overhead costs
Segment pre-tax income
Segment pre-tax income % of rev.

Restaurant
Hotel
$16,425,000 $ 5,256,000
9,819,260
3,749,172
6,605,740
1,506,828
8,018,505
3,061,320
$ (1,412,765) $ (1,554,492)
-8.60%

-29.58%

Casino
$12,340,000
4,248,768
8,091,232
3,470,175
$ 4,621,057
37.45%

Rembrandt
$34,021,000
17,817,200
16,203,800
14,550,000
$ 1,653,800

B: Cost allocation based on floor space:
Hotel
$7,275,000
$ (669,260)
-4.07%

Restaurant
$1,455,000
$ 51,828
0.99%

Casino
$5,820,000

$2,271,232
18.41%

Rembrandt
$14,550,000
$ 1,653,800

C: Cost allocation based on number of employees
Hotel
Allocated fixed overhead costs
$5,820,000
Segment pre-tax income
$ 785,740
Segment pre-tax income % of rev.
4.78%

Restaurant
$1,455,000
$ 51,828
0.99%

Casino
$7,275,000
$ 816,232
6.61%

Rembrandt
$14,550,000
$ 1,653,800

Allocated fixed overhead costs
Segment pre-tax income
Segment pre-tax income % of rev.

14-5


To download more slides, ebook, solutions and test bank, visit

3.
Requirement 2 shows the dramatic effect of choice of cost allocation base on segment
pre-tax income as a percentage of revenues:

Allocation Base
Direct costs
Floor space
Number of employees

Pre-tax Income Percentage
Hotel
Restaurant
Casino
-8.60%
-29.58%
37.45%
-4.07
0.99
18.41
4.78
0.99

6.61

The decision context should guide (a) whether costs should be allocated, and (b) the
preferred cost allocation base. Decisions about, say, performance measurement, may be made on
a combination of financial and nonfinancial measures. It may well be that Rembrandt may prefer
to exclude allocated costs from the financial measures to reduce areas of dispute.
Where cost allocation is required, the cause-and-effect and benefits-received criteria are
recommended in Chapter 14. The $14,550,000 is a fixed overhead cost. This means that on a
short-run basis, the cause-and-effect criterion is not appropriate but Rembrandt could attempt to
identify the cost drivers for these costs in the long run when these costs are likely to be more
variable. Rembrandt should look at how the $14,550,000 cost benefits the three divisions. This
will help guide the choice of an allocation base in the short run.
4.
The analysis in requirement 2 should not guide the decision on whether to shut down any
of the divisions. The overhead costs are fixed costs in the short run. It is not clear how these
costs would be affected in the long run if Rembrandt shut down one of the divisions. Also, each
division is not independent of the other two. A decision to shut down, say, the restaurant, likely
would negatively affect the attendance at the casino and possibly the hotel. Rembrandt should
examine the future revenue and future cost implications of different resource investments in the
three divisions. This is a future-oriented exercise, whereas the analysis in requirement 2 is an
analysis of past costs.

14-6


To download more slides, ebook, solutions and test bank, visit

14-19 (25 min.) Cost allocation to divisions.
Percentages for various allocation bases (old and new):

(1) Division margin percentages
$2,400,000; $7,100,000; $9,500,000 
$19,000,000
(2) Share of employees
$350; 250; 400  1,000
(3) Share of floor space
35,000; 24,000; 66,000  125,000
(4) Share of total division administrative costs
$2,000,000; $1,800,000; $3,200,000 
$7,000,000

Pulp

Paper

Fibers

12.63157%

37.36843%

35.0

25.0

40.0

100.0

28.0

19.2

52.8

100.0

28.57142

25.71428

45.71428

100.0

50.0%

Total

100.0%

1.
Pulp
Paper
Fibers
Total
$2,400,000 $ 7,100,000 $ 9,500,000 $19,000,000

(5) Division margin
(6) Corporate overhead allocated on segment

margins = (1)  $9,000,000
1,136,842 3,363,158
4,500,000
9,000,000
(7) Operating margin with division-margin-based
allocation = (5) – (6)
$1,263,158 $ 3,736,842 $ 5,000,000 $10,000,000
(8) Revenues
$8,500,000 $17,500,000 $24,000,000 $50,000,000
Operating margin as a percentage of revenues
14.9%
21.3%
20.8%
20.0%

2.
(5) Division margin
HRM costs (alloc. base: no. of employees)
= (2)  $1,800,000
Facility costs (alloc. base: floor space)
= (3)  $2,700,000
Corp. admin (alloc. base: div. admin costs)
= (4)  $4,500,000
Corp. overhead allocated to each division
Operating margin with cause-and-effect
allocation
(8) Revenues
Operating margin as a percentage of revenues

Pulp

Paper
Fibers
Total
$2,400,000 $ 7,100,000 $ 9,500,000 $19,000,000
630 ,000

450,000

720,000

1,800,000

756,000

518,400

1,425,600

2,700,000

1,285,714
2,671,714

1,157,143
2,125,543

2,057,143
4,202,743

4,500,000

9,000,000

$ (271,714) $ 4,974,457 $ 5,297,257 $10,000,000
$8,500,000 $17,500,000 $24,000,000 $50,000,000
-3.2%
28.4%
22.1%
20.0 %

14-7


To download more slides, ebook, solutions and test bank, visit

3.
When corporate overhead is allocated to the divisions on the basis of division margins
(requirement 1), each division is profitable (has positive operating margin) and the Paper
division is the most profitable (has the highest operating margin percentage) by a slim margin,
while the Pulp division is the least profitable. When Bardem’s suggested bases are used to
allocate the different types of corporate overhead costs (requirement 2), we see that, in fact, the
Pulp division is not profitable (it has a negative operating margin). Paper continues to be the
most profitable and, in fact, it is significantly more profitable than the Fibers division.
If division performance is linked to operating margin percentages, Pulp will resist this
new way of allocating corporate costs, which causes its operating margin of nearly 15% (in the
old scheme) to be transformed into a -3.2% operating margin. The new cost allocation
methodology reveals that, if the allocation bases are reasonable, the Pulp division consumes a
greater share of corporate resources than its share of segment margins would indicate. Pulp
generates 12.6% of the segment margins, but consumes almost 29.7% ($2,671,714  $9,000,000)
of corporate overhead resources. Paper will welcome the change—its operating margin
percentage rises the most, and Fiber’s operating margin percentage remains practically the same.

Note that in the old scheme, Paper was being penalized for its efficiency (smallest share of
administrative costs), by being allocated a larger share of corporate overhead. In the new scheme,
its efficiency in terms of administrative costs, employees, and square footage is being
recognized.
4.
The new approach is preferable because it is based on cause-and-effect relationships
between costs and their respective cost drivers in the long run.
Human resource management costs are allocated using the number of employees in each
division because the costs for recruitment, training, etc., are mostly related to the number of
employees in each division. Facility costs are mostly incurred on the basis of space occupied by
each division. Corporate administration costs are allocated on the basis of divisional
administrative costs because these costs are incurred to provide support to divisional
administrations.
To overcome objections from the divisions, Bardem may initially choose not to allocate
corporate overhead to divisions when evaluating performance. He could start by sharing the
results with the divisions, and giving them—particularly the Pulp division—adequate time to
figure out how to reduce their share of cost drivers. He should also develop benchmarks by
comparing the consumption of corporate resources to competitors and other industry standards.

14-8


To download more slides, ebook, solutions and test bank, visit

14-20 (30 min.) Customer profitability, customer cost hierarchy.
1.

All amounts in thousands of U.S. dollars
Wholesale
Retail

North America South America Big Sam
World
Reven

ues at list prices
$420,000
Price discounts
30,000
Revenues (at actual prices)
390,000
Cost of goods sold
325,000
Gross margin
65,000
Customer-level operating costs
Delivery
450
Order processing
800
Sales visit
5,600
Total cust.-level optg.costs
6,850
Customer-level operating
income
$ 58,150

$580,000
40,000
540,000

455,000
85,000

$130,000
7,000
123,000
118,000
5,000

$100,000
500
99,500
90,000
9,500

650
1,000
5,500
7,150

200
200
2,300
2,700

125
130
1,350
1,605

$ 77,850

14-9

$

2,300

$

7,895


To download more slides, ebook, solutions and test bank, visit

2.

Total
(all customers)
(1) = (2) + (5)
Revenues (at actual prices)
$1,152,500
Customer-level costs
1,006,305
Customer-level operating income
146,195
Distribution-channel costs
45,000
Distribution-channel-level oper. income
101,195

Corporate-sustaining costs
65,000
Operating income
$ 36,195
aCost

Customer Distribution Channels
(all amounts in $000s)
Wholesale Customers
Retail Customers
Total
North America South America
Total
Big Sam
World
Market
Wholesale
Wholesaler
Wholesaler
Retail
Stereo
(2) = (3) + (4)
(3)
(4)
(5) = (6) + (7)
(6)
(7)
$930,000
$390,000
$540,000

$222,500
$123,000 $99,500
794,000
331,850 a
462,150 a
212,305
120,700 a 91,605 a
136,000
$ 58,150
$ 77,850
10,195
$ 2,300 $ 7,895
38,000
7,000
$ 98,000
$ 3,195

of goods sold + Total customer-level operating costs from Requirement 1

3.
If corporate costs are allocated to the channels, the retail channel will show an operating loss of
$10,805,000 ($3,195,000 – $14,000,000), and the wholesale channel will show an operating profit of
$47,000,000 ($98,000,000 – $51,000,000). The overall operating profit, of course, is still $36,195,000,
as in requirement 2. There is, however, no cause-and-effect or benefits-received relationship between
corporate costs and any allocation base, i.e., the allocation of $51,000,000 to the wholesale channel and
of $14,000,000 to the retail channel is arbitrary and not useful for decision-making. Therefore, the
management of Ramish Electronics should not base any performance evaluations or
investment/disinvestment decisions based on these channel-level operating income numbers. They may
want to take corporate costs into account, however, when making pricing decisions.

14-10


To download more slides, ebook, solutions and test bank, visit

14-21

(2030 min.) Customer profitability, service company.

1.
Revenues
Technician and equipment cost
Gross margin
Service call handling
($75  150; 240; 40; 120; 180)
Web-based parts ordering
($80  120; 210; 60; 150; 150)
Billing/Collection
($50  30; 90; 90; 60; 120)
Database maintenance
($10  150; 240; 40; 120; 180)
Customer-level operating income

2.

Avery
$260,000
182,000
78,000

Okie
$200,000
175,000
25,000

Wizard
$322,000
225,000
97,000

Grainger
$122,000
107,000
15,000

Duran
$212,000
178,000
34,000

11,250

18,000

3,000

9,000

13,500

9,600

16,800

4,800

12,000

12,000

1,500

4,500

4,500

3,000

6,000

1,500
$ 54,150

2,400
400
$ (16,700) $ 84,300

1,200
1,800
$(10,200) $ 700

Customers Ranked on Customer-Level Operating Income

Customer
Code
Wizard
Avery
Duran
Grainger
Okie

Customer-Level
Operating
Income
(1)
$ 84,300
54,150
700
(10,200)
(16,700)
$112,250

Customer
Revenue
(2)
$ 322,000
260,000
212,000
122,000
200,000

$1,116,000

Cumulative
Customer-Level
Operating Income Customer-Level
as a % of Revenue Operating Income
(3) = (1)  (2)
(4)
26.18%
$ 84,300
20.83%
138,450
0.33%
139,150
-8.36%
128,950
-8.35%
112,250

14-11

Cumulative
Customer-Level
Operating Income
as a % of Total
Customer-Level
Operating Income
(5) = (4)  $112,250
75%
123%

124%
115%
100%


To download more slides, ebook, solutions and test bank, visit

Customer-Level Operating Income
$100,000
$84,300

Customer-Level Operating Income

$80,000

$60,000

$54,150
Wizard

$40,000
Avery
Duran

$20,000

Grainger

Okie

$700
$0
$(10,200)
-$20,000

$(16,700)

-$40,000

Customers

The above table and graph present the summary results. Wizard, the most profitable customer,
provides 75% of total operating income. The three best customers provide 124% of IS’s
operating income, and the other two, by incurring losses for IS, erode the extra 24% of operating
income down to IS’s operating income.
3.

The options that Instant Service should consider include:
a. Increase the attention paid to Wizard and Avery. These are “key customers,” and
every effort has to be made to ensure they retain IS. IS may well want to suggest a
minor price reduction to signal how important it is in their view to provide a costeffective service to these customers.
b. Seek ways of reducing the costs or increasing the revenues of the problem
accounts––Okie and Grainger. For example, are the copying machines at those
customer locations outdated and in need of repair? If yes, an increased charge may be
appropriate. Can IS provide better on-site guidelines to users about ways to reduce
breakdowns?
c. As a last resort, IS may want to consider dropping particular accounts. For example,
if Grainger (or Okie) will not agree to a fee increase but has machines continually
breaking down, IS may well decide that it is time not to bid on any more work for that
customer. But care must then be taken to otherwise use or get rid of the excess fixed

capacity created by “firing” unprofitable customers.

14-12


To download more slides, ebook, solutions and test bank, visit

14-22 (2025 min.) Customer profitability, distribution.
1.

The activity-based costing for each customer is:
Charleston
Pharmacy
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Order processing,
$40 × 13; $40 × 10
Line-item ordering,
$3 × (13 × 9; 10 × 18)
Store deliveries,
$50 × 7; $50 ×10
Carton deliveries,
$1 × (7 × 22; 10 × 20)
Shelf-stocking,
$16 × (7 × 0; 10 × 0.5)
Operating costs

Chapel Hill
Pharmacy

$ 520

$ 400

351

540

350

500

154

200

0
$1,375

80
$1,720

The operating income of each customer is:
Charleston
Pharmacy
Revenues,

$2,400 × 7; $1,800 × 10
Cost of goods sold,
$2,100 × 7; $1,650 × 10
Gross margin
Operating costs
Operating income

Chapel Hill
Pharmacy

$16,800

$18,000

14,700
2,100
1,375
$ 725

16,500
1,500
1,720
$ (220)

Chapel Hill Pharmacy has a lower gross margin percentage than Charleston (8.33% vs. 12.50%)
and consumes more resources to obtain this lower margin.
2.
a.

b.

c.

Ways Figure Four could use this information include:
Pay increased attention to the top 20% of the customers. This could entail asking them for
ways to improve service. Alternatively, you may want to highlight to your own personnel
the importance of these customers; e.g., it could entail stressing to delivery people the
importance of never missing delivery dates for these customers.
Work out ways internally at Figure Four to reduce the rate per cost driver; e.g., reduce the
cost per order by having better order placement linkages with customers. This cost
reduction by Figure Four will improve the profitability of all customers.
Work with customers so that their behavior reduces the total “system-wide” costs. At a
minimum, this approach could entail having customers make fewer orders and fewer line
items. This latter point is controversial with students; the rationale is that a reduction in
the number of line items (diversity of products) carried by Ma and Pa stores may reduce
the diversity of products Figure Four carries.

14-13


To download more slides, ebook, solutions and test bank, visit

There are several options here:
 Simple verbal persuasion by showing customers cost drivers at Figure Four.
 Explicitly pricing out activities like cartons delivered and shelf-stocking so that
customers pay for the costs they cause.
 Restricting options available to certain customers, e.g., customers with low revenues
could be restricted to one free delivery per week.
An even more extreme example is working with customers so that deliveries are easier to make
and shelf-stocking can be done faster.

d.

Offer salespeople bonuses based on the operating income of each customer rather than
the gross margin of each customer.

Some students will argue that the bottom 40% of the customers should be dropped. This
action should be only a last resort after all other avenues have been explored. Moreover, an
unprofitable customer today may well be a profitable customer tomorrow, and it is myopic to
focus on only a 1-month customer-profitability analysis to classify a customer as unprofitable.

14-23 (30–40 min.) Variance analysis, multiple products.
1.

Sales-volume =  Actual sales  Budgeted sales   Budgeted contribution
margin per ticket
 quantity in units quantity in units 
variance
Lower-tier tickets
Upper-tier tickets
All tickets

2.

= (3,300 – 4,000)  $20 =$14,000 U
= (7,700 – 6,000)  $ 5 = 8,500 F
$ 5,500 U

Budgeted average
contribution margin per unit =

(4,000  $20)  (6,000  $5)
10,000
=

$80,000  $30,000 $110,000
=
10,000
10,000

= $11 per unit (seat sold)
Sales-mix percentages:
Lower-tier

Upper-tier

Budgeted
4,000
= 0.40
10,000

Actual
3,300
= 0.30
11,000

6,000
= 0.60
10,000

7,700

= 0.70
11,000

14-14


To download more slides, ebook, solutions and test bank, visit

Solution Exhibit 14-23 presents the sales-volume, sales-quantity, and sales-mix variances for
lower-tier tickets, upper-tier tickets, and in total for Detroit Penguins in 2010.
The sales-quantity variances can also be computed as:
Budgeted
Budgeted
 Actual units Budgeted units 
Sales-quantity =  of all tickets  of all tickets   sales - mix  cont. margin
 percentage

variance
sold
sold
per ticket


The sales-quantity variances are:
Lower-tier tickets = (11,000 – 10,000) × 0.40 × $20 = $ 8,000 F
Upper-tier tickets
= (11,000 – 10,000) × 0.60 × $ 5 =
3,000 F
All tickets
$11,000 F

The sales-mix variance can also be computed as:
Actual units
Sales-mix = of all tickets ×
variance
sold

Budgeted 
Budgeted
 Actual
 sales-mix  sales-mix   contribution margin
 percentage percentage 
per ticket



The sales-mix variances are
Lower-tier tickets
Upper-tier tickets
All tickets

= 11,000 × (0.30 – 0.40) × $20
= 11,000 × (0.70 – 0.60) × $ 5

= $22,000 U
=
5,500 F
$16,500 U

3.
The Detroit Penguins increased average attendance by 10% per game. However, there

was a sizable shift from lower-tier seats (budgeted contribution margin of $20 per seat) to the
upper-tier seats (budgeted contribution margin of $5 per seat). The net result: the actual
contribution margin was $5,500 below the budgeted contribution margin.

14-15


To download more slides, ebook, solutions and test bank, visit

SOLUTION EXHIBIT 14-23
Columnar Presentation of Sales-Volume, Sales-Quantity and Sales-Mix Variances for Detroit
Penguins
Flexible Budget:
Actual Units of
All Products Sold
× Actual Sales Mix
× Budgeted
Contribution
Margin per Unit
(1)
Panel A:
Lower-tier

a

(11,000 × 0.30 ) × $20
3,300 × $20
$66,000

Actual Units of

All Products Sold
× Budgeted Sales Mix
× Budgeted
Contribution Margin
per Unit
(2)
b

(11,000 × 0.40 ) × $20
4,400 × $20
$88,000

Static Budget:
Budgeted Units of
All Products Sold
× Budgeted Sales Mix
× Budgeted
Contribution
Margin per Unit
(3)
b

(10,000 × 0.40 ) × $20
4,000 × $20
$80,000

$22,000U
Sales-mix variance

$8,000 F

Sales-quantity variance
$14,000 U
Sales-volume variance

Panel B:
Upper-tier

c

(11,000 × 0.70 ) × $5
7,700 × $5
$38,500

d

(11,000 × 0.60 ) × $5
6,600 × $5
$33,000

$5,500 F
Sales-mix variance

d

(10,000 × 0.60 ) × $5
6,000 × $5
$30,000

$3,000 F
Sales-quantity variance

$8,500 F
Sales-volume variance

Panel C:
All Tickets
(Sum of Lowertier and Uppertier tickets)

e

$104,500

f

$121,000

g

$110,000

$16,500 U
$11,000 F
Total sales-mix variance
Total sales-quantity variance
$5,500 U
Total sales-volume variance

F = favorable effect on operating income; U = unfavorable effect on operating income.
Actual Sales Mix:
a

Lower-tier = 3,300 ÷ 11,000
c
Upper-tier = 7,700 ÷ 11,000
e
$66,000 + $38,500 = $104,500

= 30%
= 70%

Budgeted Sales Mix:
b
Lower-tier
= 4,000 ÷ 10,000 = 40%
d
Upper-tier
= 6,000 ÷ 10,000 = 60%
f
$88,000 + $33,000 = $121,000
g
$80,000 + $30,000 = $110,000

14-16


To download more slides, ebook, solutions and test bank, visit

14-24 (30 min.) Variance analysis, working backward
backward.
1. and 2. Solution Exhibit 14-24 presents the sales-volume, sales-quantity, and sales-mix
variances for the Plain and Chic wine glasses and in total for Jinwa Corporation in June 2009.

The steps to fill in the numbers in Solution Exhibit 14-24 follow:
Step 1
Consider the static budget column (Column 3):
Static budget total contribution margin
Budgeted units of all glasses to be sold
Budgeted contribution margin per unit of Plain
Budgeted contribution margin per unit of Chic

$5,600
2,000
$2
$6

Suppose that the budgeted sales-mix percentage of Plain is y. Then the budgeted salesmix percentage of Chic is (1 – y). Therefore,
(2,000y  $2) + (2,000  (1 – y)  $6)
$4000y + $12,000 – $12,000y
$8,000y
y
1–y

=
=
=
=
=

$5,600
$5,600
$6,400
0.8 or 80%

20%

Jinwa’s budgeted sales mix is 80% of Plain and 20% of Chic. We can then fill in all the numbers
in Column 3.
Step 2
Next, consider Column 2 of Solution Exhibit 14-24.
The total of Column 2 in Panel C is $4,200 (the static budget total contribution margin of
$5,600 – the total sales-quantity variance of $1,400 U which was given in the problem).
We need to find the actual units sold of all glasses, which we denote by q. From Column
2, we know that
(q  0.8  $2) + (q  0.2  $6)
$1.6q + $1.2q
$2.8q
q

=
=
=
=

$4,200
$4,200
$4,200
1,500 units

So, the total quantity of all glasses sold is 1,500 units. This computation allows us to fill in all the
numbers in Column 2.

14-17

To download more slides, ebook, solutions and test bank, visit

Step 3
Next, consider Column 1 of Solution Exhibit 14-24. We know actual units sold of all glasses
(1,500 units), the actual sales-mix percentage (given in the problem information as Plain, 60%;
Chic, 40%), and the budgeted unit contribution margin of each product (Plain, $2; Chic, $6). We
can therefore determine all the numbers in Column 1.
Solution Exhibit 14-24 displays the following sales-quantity, sales-mix, and sales-volume
variances:
Sales-Volume Variance
Plain
$1,400 U
Chic
1,200 F
All Glasses
$ 200 U
Sales-Mix Variances
Plain
$ 600 U
Chic
1,800 F
All Glasses
$1,200 F

Sales-Quantity Variances
Plain
$ 800 U
Chic
600 U

All Glasses
$1,400 U

3.
Jinwa Corporation shows an unfavorable sales-quantity variance because it sold fewer
wine glasses in total than was budgeted. This unfavorable sales-quantity variance is partially
offset by a favorable sales-mix variance because the actual mix of wine glasses sold has shifted
in favor of the higher contribution margin Chic wine glasses. The problem illustrates how failure
to achieve the budgeted market penetration can have negative effects on operating income.

14-18


To download more slides, ebook, solutions and test bank, visit

SOLUTION EXHIBIT 14-24
Columnar Presentation of Sales-Volume, Sales-Quantity and Sales-Mix Variances
for Jinwa Corporation
Flexible Budget:
Actual Units
of All Glasses Sold
 Actual Sales Mix
 Budgeted
Contribution
Margin per Unit

Actual Units
of All Glasses Sold
 Budgeted Sales Mix
 Budgeted

Contribution
Margin per Unit

Static Budget:
Budgeted Units
of All Glasses Sold
 Budgeted Sales Mix
 Budgeted
Contribution
Margin per Unit

Panel A:
Plain

(1,500  0.6)  $2
(1,500  0.8)  $2
(2,000  0.8)  $2
900  $2
1,200  $2
1,600  $2
$1,800
$2,400
$3,200
$600 U
$800 U
Sales-mix variance
Sales-quantity variance
$1,400 U
Sales-volume variance

Panel B:
Chic

(1,500  0.4)  $6
(1,500  0.2)  $6
(2,000  0.2)  $6
600  $6
300  $6
400  $6
$3,600
$1,800
$2,400
$1,800 F
$600 U
Sales-mix variance
Sales-quantity variance
$1,200 F
Sales-volume variance

Panel C:
All Glasses

$5,400

$4,200

$5,600

$1,200 F
$1,400 U

Total sales-mix variance Total sales-quantity variance
$200 U
Total sales-volume variance

F = favorable effect on operating income; U = unfavorable effect on operating income.

14-19


To download more slides, ebook, solutions and test bank, visit

14-25 (60 min.) Variance analysis, multiple products.
1. Budget for 2009

Kola
Limor
Orlem
Total

Selling
Price
(1)
$6.00
4.00
7.00

Variable
Contrib.
Cost
Margin

Units
Sales
per Unit
per Unit
Sold
Mix
(3) = (1) – (2)
(2)
(4)
(5)
$4.00
$2.00
400,000
16%
2.80
1.20
600,000
24
4.50
2.50
1,500,000
60
2,500,000 100%

Contribution
Margin
(6) = (3) × (4)
$ 800,000
720,000
3,750,000

$5,270,000

Variable
Contrib.
Cost
Margin
Units
per Unit
per Unit
Sold
(3) = (1) – (2)
(2)
(4)
$4.50
$1.70
480,000
2.75
1.50
900,000
4.60
2.20
1,620,000
3,000,000

Contribution
Margin
(6) = (3) × (4)
$ 816,000
1,350,000
3,564,000

$5,730,000

Actual for 2009

Kola
Limor
Orlem
Total

Selling
Price
(1)
$6.20
4.25
6.80

Sales
Mix
(5)
16%
30
54
100%

Solution Exhibit 14-25 presents the sales-volume, sales-quantity, and sales-mix variances for
each product and in total for 2009.
Budgeted 
Budgeted
 Actual
Sales-volume   quantity of  quantity of   contribution margin

variance
 units sold units sold 
per unit


Kola
Limor
Orlem
Total

= ( 480,000 – 400,000) × $2.00 =
= ( 900,000 – 600,000) × $1.20 =
= (1,620,000 – 1,500,000) × $2.50 =

$160,000 F
360,000 F
300,000 F
$820,000 F

Budgeted
Budgeted
 Actual units Budgeted units 
Sales-quantity   of all products  of all products   sales-mix  contribution margin
variance


sold
sold
percentage
per unit



Kola
Limor
Orlem
Total

= (3,000,000 – 2,500,000) × 0.16 × $2.00
= (3,000,000 – 2,500,000) × 0.24 × $1.20
= (3,000,000 – 2,500,000) × 0.60 × $2.50

14-20

= $ 160,000 F
= 144,000 F
= 750,000 F
$1,054,000 F


To download more slides, ebook, solutions and test bank, visit

Actual units
Actual
Sales-mix = of all products × sales-mix
variance
sold
percentage
Kola
Limor
Orlem

Total

=
=
=

Budgeted
Budgeted
– sales-mix × contrib. margin
percentage
per unit

3,000,000 × (0.16 – 0.16) × $2.00
3,000,000 × (0.30– 0.24) × $1.20
3,000,000 × (0.54 – 0.60) × $2.50

=
=
=

$

0
216,000 F
450,000 U
$234,000 U

2.
The breakdown of the favorable sales-volume variance of $820,000 shows that the biggest
contributor is the 500,000 unit increase in sales resulting in a favorable sales-quantity variance of

$1,054,000. There is a partially offsetting unfavorable sales-mix variance of $234,000 in contribution
margin.
SOLUTION EXHIBIT 14-25
Sales-Mix and Sales-Quantity Variance Analysis of Soda King for 2009
Flexible Budget:
Actual Units of
All Products Sold
 Actual Sales Mix
 Budgeted Contribution
Margin Per Unit

Static Budget:
Budgeted Units of
All Products Sold
 Budgeted Sales Mix
 Budgeted Contribution
Margin Per Unit

Actual Units of
All Products Sold
 Budgeted Sales Mix
 Budgeted Contribution
Margin Per Unit

Kola
3,000,000  0.16  $2 = $ 960,000 3,000,000  0.16  $2 =$ 960,000 2,500,000  0.16  $2 = $
800,000
Limor
3,000,000  0.30  $1.20 = 1,080,000 3,000,000  0.24  $1.20 = 864,000 2,500,000  0.24  $1.20 =
720,000

Orlem 3,000,000  0.54  $2.50 = 4,050,000 3,000,000  0.60  $2.50 = 4,500,000 2,500,000  0.60  $2.50 =
3,750,000
$6,090,000 $6,324,000
$5,270,000
$234,000 U
Sales-mix variance

$1,054,000 F
Sales-quantity variance

$820,000 F
Sales-volume variance

F = favorable effect on operating income; U= unfavorable effect on operating income

14-21


To download more slides, ebook, solutions and test bank, visit

14-26 (20 min.) Market-share and market-size variances (continuation of 14-25).

Western region
Soda King
Market share

Actual
24 million
3 million
12.5%

Budgeted
25 million
2.5 million
10%

Average budgeted contribution margin per unit = $2.108 ($5,270,000 ÷ 2,500,000)
Solution Exhibit 14-26 presents the sales-quantity variance, market-size variance, and marketshare variance for 2006.
Market-share
variance

Actual
= market size
in units

×

Actual
market
share

–

Budgeted
market
share

Budgeted contribution
× margin per composite
unit for budgeted mix

= 24,000,000 × (0.125 – 0.10) × $2.108
= 24,000,000 × .025 × $2.108
= $1,264,800 F

Market-size
variance

=

Actual
market size –
in units

Budgeted
market size
in units

×

Budgeted
market
share

×

Budgeted contribution
margin per composite
unit for budgeted mix

= (24,000,000 – 25,000,000) × 0.10 × $2.108
= – 1,000,000 × 0.10 × $2.108
= 210,800 U

The market share variance is favorable because the actual 12.5% market share was higher than
the budgeted 10% market share. The market size variance is unfavorable because the market size
decreased 4% [(25,000,000 – 24,000,000) ÷ 25,000,000].
While the overall total market size declined (from 25 million to 24 million), the increase
in market share meant a favorable sales-quantity variance.
Sales-Quantity Variance
$1,054,000 F

Market-share variance
$1,264,800 F

Market-size variance
$210,800 U

14-22


To download more slides, ebook, solutions and test bank, visit

SOLUTION EXHIBIT 14-26
Market-Share and Market-Size Variance Analysis of Soda King for 2009
Actual Market Size
 Actual Market Share
 Budgeted Average
Contribution Margin
Per Unit

24,000,000  0.125a  $2.108b
$6,324,000

Actual Market Size
 Budgeted Market Share
 Budgeted Average
Contribution Margin
Per Unit
24,000,000  0.10c  $2.108 b
$5,059,200

Static Budget:
Budgeted Market Size
 Budgeted Market Share
 Budgeted Average
Contribution Margin
Per Unit
25,000,000  0.10c  $2.108b
$5,270,000

$1,264,800 F

$210,800 U

Market-share variance

Market-size variance
$1,054,000 F

Sales-quantity variance

F = favorable effect on operating income; U = unfavorable effect on operating income
aActual market share: 3,000,000 units ÷ 24,000,000 units = 0.125, or 12.5%
bBudgeted average contribution margin per unit $5,270,000 ÷ 2,500,000 units = $2.108 per unit
cBudgeted market share: 2,500,000 units ÷ 25,000,000 units = 0.10, or 10%

14-23


To download more slides, ebook, solutions and test bank, visit

14-27 (40 min.) Allocation of corporate costs to divisions.
1.
a.

b.

c.

d.

The purposes for allocating central corporate costs to each division include the following
(students may pick and discuss any two):
To provide information for economic decisions. Allocations can signal to division
managers that decisions to expand (contract) activities will likely require increases
(decreases) in corporate costs that should be considered in the initial decision about
expansion (contraction). When top management is allocating resources to divi sions,
analysis of relative divi sion profitability should consider differential use of corporate
services by divisions. Some alloca tion schemes can encourage the use of central
ser vices that would otherwise be underutilized. A common rationale related to this

pur pose is “to remind profit center managers that central corporate costs exist and that
division earnings must be adequate to cover some share of those costs.”
Motivation. Allocations create incentives for division managers to control costs; for
example, by reducing the number of employees at a divi sion, a manager will save
direct labor costs as well as central personnel and payroll costs allocated on the basis of
number of employees. Allocation also creates incentives for division managers to monitor
the effectiveness and efficiency with which central corporate costs are spent.
Cost justification or reimbursement. Some lines of business of Richfield Oil may be
regulated with cost data used in determining “fair prices”; allocations of central corporate
costs will result in higher prices being set by a regulator.
Income measurement for external parties. Richfield Oil may in clude allocations of
central corporate costs in its external line-of-busi ness reporting.

2.

Revenues
Percentage of revenues
$8,000; $16,000; $4,800; $3,200 
$32,000

(Dollar amounts in millions)
Revenues
Operating costs
Operating income
Corp. costs allocated on revenues
(% of revs  $3,228)
Division operating income

Oil & Gas
Upstream

$8,000

Oil & Gas Chemical
Downstream Products
$16,000
$4,800

25%
Oil & Gas
Upstream
$8,000
3,000
5,000
807
$4,193

14-24

50%

15%

Oil & Gas Chemical
Downstream Products
$16,000
$4,800
15,000
3,800
1,000
1,000

$

1,614
(614)

484
$ 516

Copper
Mining
$3,200

Total
$32,000

10%

100%

Copper
Mining
$3,200
3,500
(300)

Total
$32,000
25,300
6,700

323
$ (623)

3,228
$ 3,472


To download more slides, ebook, solutions and test bank, visit

3.

First, calculate the share of each allocation base for each of the four corporate cost pools:

Identifiable assets
(1)Percentage of total identifiable assets
$14,000; $6,000; $3,000; $2,000 
$25,000

Oil & Gas
Upstream
$14,000

Oil & Gas
Downstream
$6,000

Chemical
Products
$3,000

Copper
Mining
$2,000

Total
$25,000

56%

24%

12%

8%

100%

Division revenues
(2) Percentage of total division revenues
$8,000; $16,000; $4,800; $3,200 
$32,000

$8,000

$16,000

$4,800

$3,200

$32,000

25%

50%

15%

10%

100%

Positive operating income
(3) Percentage of total positive operating
income
$5,000; $1,000; $1,000; 0  $7,000

$5,000

$1,000

$1,000

NONE

$7,000

71.4%

14.3%

14.3%

0%

100%

9,000

12,000

6,000

3,000

30,000

30%

40%

20%

10%

100%

Number of employees
(4) Percentage of total employees

9,000; 12,000; 6,000; 3,000  30,000

Using these allocation percentages and the allocation bases suggested by Rhodes, we can allocate the $3,228 M of
corporate costs as shown below. Note that the costs in Cost Pool 2 total $800 M ($150 + $110 + $200 + $140 +
$200).

(Dollar amounts in millions)
Revenues
Operating Costs
Operating Income
Cost Pool 1 Allocation ((1)  $2,000)
Cost Pool 2 Allocation ((2)  $800)
Cost Pool 3 Allocation ((3)  $203)
Cost Pool 4 Allocation ((4)  $225)
Division Income

Chemical
Oil & Gas
Oil & Gas
Copper
Upstream Downstream Products
Mining
$8,000.00
$16,000.00 $4,800.00 $3,200.00
3,000.00
15,000.00
3,800.00 3,500.00
5,000.00
1,000.00
1,000.00 (300.00)

1,120.00
480.00
240.00 160.00
200.00
400.00
120.00 80.00
145.00
29.00
29.00 0.00
67.50
90.00
45.00
22.50
$3,467.50
$
1.00 $ 566.00 $ (562.50)

Total
$32,000
25,300
6,700
2,000
800
203
225
$ 3,472

4.
The table below compares the reported income of each division under the original
revenue-based allocation scheme and the new 4-pool-based allocation scheme. Oil & Gas

Upstream seems 17% less profitable than before ($3,467.5  $4,193 = 83%), and may resist the
new allocation, but each of the other divisions seem more profitable (or less loss-making) than
before and they will probably welcome it. In this setting, corporate costs are relatively large
(about 13% of total operating costs), and division incomes are sensitive to the corporate cost
allocation method.
(Dollar amounts in millions)
Operating Income
(before corp. cost allocation)
Division income under revenue-based
allocation of corporate costs
Division income under 4-cost-pool
allocation of corporate costs

Oil & Gas
Upstream

Oil & Gas
Chemical
Downstream Products

$5,000.00

$1,000.00

$1,000.00 $(300.00)

$6,700

$4,193.00

$ (614.00)

$ 516.00 $(623.00)

$3,472

$3,467.50

$

$ 566.00 $(562.50)

$3,472

1.00

Strengths of Rhodes’ proposal relative to existing single-cost pool method:

14-25

Copper
Mining

Total